Welcome to DBSTalk

Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!

I recently came across the "DirecTV is EVIL" thread and while reading, the argument that ensued got off the main topic and the thread was closed. To summarize the disgruntled customer was upset at what he (we are going to say it is a he for the purposes of this thread) felt was a mistake on his billing for his Winback offer extended to him by DirecTV, and created the thread to vent. He entered the agreement with the understanding that he would have pay an ETF and was livid that DirecTV would not release him from that fee when he cancelled his account before the end of the agreement. So for his own personal satisfaction he took to the internet to try and dissuade others from doing business with a company, trying to do as much damage as he possibly could to a company he felt wronged by.

If this individual had truly done his research, he would have been able to respond to those posting on his thread with a copy of the e-mail DirecTV sends out to customers awaiting a new install, and a line by line break down of the bill he felt was incorrect. Other posts pointed out he could have come to the forum first for friendly advice on how to correct his issue, or even a better explanation of his bill than what the CSRs were providing to him. We also have no idea exactly what was said in these conversations, and how his demeanor was toward the CSRs who were trying to assist him. He could have been just as abrasive on the phone as he was in his post, creating an adversarial relationship rather than a team effort in his quest to correct his bill.

Which brings me to the point of the thread, when a consumer goes to purchase a product they are ultimately responsible for the outcome of that business transaction. The company selling the product is doing just that, and they are not going to volunteer information that will give buyers pause. They also use clever and broad phrasing when advertising that leaves room for a consumer to use their own imagination to fill in the details. The customers are the ones who need to have a clear understanding of what they are purchasing before they sign anything. The customers are the ones who need to ask the proper questions. If they do not know what to ask, find someone who does. Customers come on these forums all the time looking for advice before buying. If one is not too lazy to do the "footwork" they will find themselves rarely facing a situation like this.

Many times when disputes such as this arise it is from unreasonable expectations placed on the provider, and even if the expectation is logical, it does not mean that the expectation is the reality. Here are some following examples of how these incorrect expectations manifest in regards to DirecTV services and billing.

When Whole-Home DVR was being heavily advertised at it's release, there was a line of commercials that showed television shows coming out of the TV and following customers room to room as they paused and resumed the program. The reality was that you would have to exit the recording on the server, and then choose the recording on the client receiver from the list of recordings to resume playback. Customers were calling in to cancel service because these two extra steps were too much for them, and when they were still bound by the ETF began to raise claims of "false advertisement", in order to avoid paying the fee.

When customer's had to manually submit their rebates online at directv.com/rebates, and did not do so in the allotted time frame, they made excuses such as not having internet at home (free at the library), not having an e-mail (also free), and not being good with electronics (find someone who is to help you). Then instead of accepting that it was ultimately their failure which resulted in the higher than expected bill, they also claimed foul play on behalf of DirecTV. This is a quoted taken from the "DirecTV is EVIL" thread. "I still did not really care about the rebates but if I get them, hooray for me. I just want my monthly rate of $77.89." He states that he does not care about the rebates, showing that he does not understand that these are the very discounts that would bring his bill down to the expected amount. A failure on his part to comprehend his own billing situation.

More recently the Genie (HR34/44) advertisements have resulted in incorrect expectations as well. Taken from DirecTV.com "Genie, only from DIRECTV, serves your entire home. So now you can enjoy a full HD DVR experience on every TV in your home, without seeing a box in every room." Customers actually expect this receiver to beam programming wireless to all the televisions in their home. The reality is that they will still need either an HD receiver, C31/41 client, or an RVU enabled TV with a broadband DECA attached to accomplish this. While this may be coming down the line, it is not yet a reality from a standard install.

When it comes to a technical issue requiring a service call to correct. Some customers will go into a rage when informed they actually have to pay someone to provide a service. They can't believe that some will not come fix equipment, that is out of warranty, that they own, for free. $49.95 flat without any additional parts and labor costs and a free 90 day warranty on the work included, is positioned as highway robbery. "I pay my bill every month, why should I have to pay to have my equipment repaired?" is a common question from those who think this way. They do not stop to compare it to other situations in life. I put gas in my car every month as well. However I know better than to drive my car that is owned outright to the closest dealer's service department and demand they fix it for free.

DirecTV on Demand, Pandora, DirecTV everywhere, You Tube via DirecTV, Caller ID, and TV Apps are all free services, that only require an internet connection, or in the case of caller ID, a phone connection. Yet customers will cancel their services with DirecTV because they have to "go through the trouble" of connecting their DVRs and receivers. This group will also try to use times in which these services are temporarily unavailable to get out of an ETF. "I am not getting the services that I am paying for!" is a common statement. They are free services.....

Now there are those in this forum that get upset when they feel that a post is pro DirecTV. I would like to point out that there are individual CSRs that also fail to take responsibility. For example the agent that tells a customer they are getting a replacement receiver but instead sets them up for an upgrade with a receiver of the same type, causing a contract extension the customer would be unaware of. The same goes for a sales agent that failed to read all the disclosures and a customer then goes unaware of an important detail in the transaction. To refer back to the "DirecTV is EVIL" thread, had the movers agent double checked with the customer and made sure he was aware that his deal was not the new customer offer but a Winback/Movers offer instead, and had the very first billing agent and supervisor stood firm that the customer would not get these rebates due to the very same thing, and even tried to point out that he likely had premium services that were not part of his base package on his account, causing the price increase after three months, then his misunderstandings would have stopped there. But these individuals who do not make up the entire company also failed to take responsibility for the the situation.

The failure to take responsibility on both sides of the equation are what lead to these instances. In the end you can not control a companies actions and decisions, you can only control your own. You would be wise to focus on that. Your choices have consequences. And when you have the freedom of choice, if you don't like the consequences, make a different choice and move on. Take responsibility for the choices you make, and you will find that unfavorable situations will be few and far between. I hope that this thread will help future consumers see the need of making a fully informed decision in thier buying future, and look forward to the discussion that ensues from this thread.

I am not a direct representative of DirecTV, the views in this thread are my own personal opinion and do not reflect on DirecTV in any way.

Cleatus and Clara were newlyweds and being the romantic sort, she sent him a text.............
"If you are sleeping, send me your dreams.
If you are laughing, send me your smile.
If you are eating, send me a bite.
If you are drinking, send me a sip.
If you are crying, send me your tears. I love you!"

"The failure to take responsibility on both sides of the equation are what lead to these instances. In the end you can not control a companies actions and decisions, you can only control your own. You would be wise to focus on that. Your choices have consequences. And when you have the freedom of choice, if you don't like the consequences, make a different choice and move on. Take responsibility for the choices you make, and you will find that unfavorable situations will be few and far between. I hope that this thread will help future consumers see the need of making a fully informed decision in thier buying future, and look forward to the discussion that ensues from this thread."

I agree with you, but have my doubts about folks accepting personal responsibility. In today's society we see more and more lawsuits of folks who put McDonald's coffee between their legs and then sue McDonald's when they get burned. The lawsuits against fast food franchises because someone became overweight by eating their products. Personal responsibility seems to be a concept that is fading fast in the rear view mirror.

Literally half the posts about people complaining about this or that on here deal with some sort of not taking personal responsibility for their own actions. Get rid of those posts, things could actually get accomplished here.

I agree with you, but have my doubts about folks accepting personal responsibility. In today's society we see more and more lawsuits of folks who put McDonald's coffee between their legs and then sue McDonald's when they get burned.

The reason why that lawsuit happened wasn't simply because the person spilled coffee on their lap. Sure, it seems silly that it ultimately resulted in McDonald's putting on their cups "The contents are HOT," but they didn't care that they were serving coffee that was too hot. McDonalds was brewing their coffee around 185 degrees, where normal coffee makers were brewing around 150 degrees. There's a key difference between the two temperature points: 185 degrees is scalding, 150 degrees is not. A representative of McDonalds testified that (in so many words) they didn't care that 185 degrees was a scalding temperature, despite there being several hundred reports of other people burning themselves badly. McDonalds' actions in this case were found to be reckless, willful and callous.

McDonalds deserved to be sued in this case, as silly as it sounds.

I have been a DirecTV subscriber since 2005.

A few channels I'd still like to see DirecTV add are:
CSPAN3, the PAC-12 Network(s), BBC World and more international news channels.

The reason why that lawsuit happened wasn't simply because the person spilled coffee on their lap. Sure, it seems silly that it ultimately resulted in McDonald's putting on their cups "The contents are HOT," but they didn't care that they were serving coffee that was too hot. McDonalds was brewing their coffee around 185 degrees, where normal coffee makers were brewing around 150 degrees. There's a key difference between the two temperature points: 185 degrees is scalding, 150 degrees is not. A representative of McDonalds testified that (in so many words) they didn't care that 185 degrees was a scalding temperature, despite there being several hundred reports of other people burning themselves badly. McDonalds' actions in this case were found to be reckless, willful and callous.

McDonalds deserved to be sued in this case, as silly as it sounds.

Yes, that lawsuit should not be used as an example. Now, the guy that sued the Columbus Zoo when he was trying to break into a soda machine and was injured, that was a silly lawsuit. But that didn't make big press.

The reason why that lawsuit happened wasn't simply because the person spilled coffee on their lap. Sure, it seems silly that it ultimately resulted in McDonald's putting on their cups "The contents are HOT," but they didn't care that they were serving coffee that was too hot. McDonalds was brewing their coffee around 185 degrees, where normal coffee makers were brewing around 150 degrees. There's a key difference between the two temperature points: 185 degrees is scalding, 150 degrees is not. A representative of McDonalds testified that (in so many words) they didn't care that 185 degrees was a scalding temperature, despite there being several hundred reports of other people burning themselves badly. McDonalds' actions in this case were found to be reckless, willful and callous.

McDonalds deserved to be sued in this case, as silly as it sounds.

A normal coffee maker is not brewing at 150 degrees. That is far too low.

They deserved it so much that the appeals court overturned the verdict I believe. As a comedian once said, silly warnings are on things because people have done them before, which is frightening.

You would be incorrect. An appeals court did not overturn the verdict. The trial judge (not an appeals court) reduced the punitive damages portion of the verdict to an amount 3 times compensatory damages. The actual verdict and the remainder to of the damages were not changed.

The company selling the product is doing just that, and they are not going to volunteer information that will give buyers pause. They also use clever and broad phrasing when advertising that leaves room for a consumer to use their own imagination to fill in the details.

When Whole-Home DVR was being heavily advertised at it's release, there was a line of commercials that showed television shows coming out of the TV and following customers room to room as they paused and resumed the program. The reality was that you would have to exit the recording on the server, and then choose the recording on the client receiver from the list of recordings to resume playback. Customers were calling in to cancel service because these two extra steps were too much for them, and when they were still bound by the ETF began to raise claims of "false advertisement", in order to avoid paying the fee.

Good post.

But companies can't have it both ways. If you entice a customer into a product by using broad terms, then you can't really get upset when customers fight back using equally broad terms.

As an independent installer with customers on several different cable systems, DirecTV, Dish, and OTA only (and a few with some unholy combinations) I generally discourage folks from changing service providers.

Still, from time to time I encounter situations that are literally jaw dropping. A satellite dish installed on the front of a house when I see no reason for it to not have been put out of sight on the back, reluctance of an installer to install equipment specifically listed on a work order, satellite dishes installed on roof OSB and not a rafter, separate departments of a service provider apparently working off different play books, and some CSRs failing to accurately (or at all) detail the account notes.

I'd say the trend over the long term is improving. Some issues will be around for a long time, bundling limitations in rural areas, customers getting to beta test the coolest new hardware, CSR limitations in troubleshooting problems over the phone, etc.

Exactly. I assume he will be starting a second post regarding "corporate responsibility"?

What are you talking about? Corporations never act irresponsibly. It's always up to the buyer to thoroughly investigate any company they do business with. If you lose a child because a company knowingly made an unsafe product....well too bad, you should have taken more responsibility before you bought the product. Geez, I hate this lawsuit happy society we live in.

What are you talking about? Corporations never act irresponsibly. It's always up to the buyer to thoroughly investigate any company they do business with. If you lose a child because a company knowingly made an unsafe product....well too bad, you should have taken more responsibility before you bought the product. Geez, I hate this lawsuit happy society we live in.

A normal coffee maker is not brewing at 150 degrees. That is far too low.

A french press manual will tell you to bring the water up to 195-205 before pouring it over the coffee. From what I understand the average cheap coffee maker most people use brew at a much lower temp like 150 which is too low and why the taste isnt as good as "better" machines.